The Student Room Group

Russell Group University

so I'm going to be going to Exeter to study law and buisness and there seems to be so much hype over the fact it's a Russell Group University, and I do not understand it whatsoever.
is this an actual perk or is it just a *****y rivalry thing?
Although there are many well ranked unis in the RG, it’s chiefly a petty prestige thing for teenagers to feel like their hard work paid off.

It’s basically replaced the ex-polytechnic snobbery. People always want to feel like they’re doing better than someone else.
Original post by Gowerdiola
so I'm going to be going to Exeter to study law and buisness and there seems to be so much hype over the fact it's a Russell Group University, and I do not understand it whatsoever.
is this an actual perk or is it just a *****y rivalry thing?

Russell Group universities are the most research-intensive universities in the UK. They get the largest research funding and tend to have the largest operating budgets and endowments.

Since there are no clear demarcations between undergrad and postgrad quality by university in the UK, they also tend to be part of the most prestigious universities in the UK, along with about 4 or so non-Russell Group universities.

That said, not all Russell Group universities are of equal prestige. There are tiers within this group of universities in terms of global prestige.

Tier 1: Oxford and Cambridge

Tier 2: LSE, Imperial and UCL

Tier 3a: KCL and Edinburgh
Tier 3b: Durham, Bristol, Warwick and Manchester

Tier 4a: Nottingham, Glasgow, Birmingham, Leeds, York and Exeter
Tier 4b: Sheffield, Southampton, Cardiff, QMU, Newcastle, Liverpool and QUB
Original post by RoyalBeams
Russell Group universities are the most research-intensive universities in the UK. They get the largest research funding and tend to have the largest operating budgets and endowments.


This is compete rubbish - RG means nothing for nearly all degrees and this ranking is so random as to be laughable.
It doesn’t mean anything in real terms for the average undergraduate. I wouldn’t give it much (if any) thought at all.
Original post by RoyalBeams
Russell Group universities are the most research-intensive universities in the UK. They get the largest research funding and tend to have the largest operating budgets and endowments.

Since there are no clear demarcations between undergrad and postgrad quality by university in the UK, they also tend to be part of the most prestigious universities in the UK, along with about 4 or so non-Russell Group universities.

That said, not all Russell Group universities are of equal prestige. There are tiers within this group of universities in terms of global prestige.

Tier 1: Oxford and Cambridge

Tier 2: LSE, Imperial and UCL

Tier 3a: KCL and Edinburgh
Tier 3b: Durham, Bristol, Warwick and Manchester

Tier 4a: Nottingham, Glasgow, Birmingham, Leeds, York and Exeter
Tier 4b: Sheffield, Southampton, Cardiff, QMU, Newcastle, Liverpool and QUB


so ultimately it makes me seem more sought after due to being from a RG Uni?
Original post by Muttley79
This is compete rubbish - RG means nothing for nearly all degrees and this ranking is so random as to be laughable.


please explain to me mate I'm really stumped.
I’m a RG graduate & yes it is just snobbery. Some firms want RG graduates, over non-rg but it is just snobbery. My subject at my uni was recently ranked 29th in the world which is great but makes little difference.

I would say for my field it was, beneficial to go to a research intensive university (as some of my lecturers are world experts in their techniques) but ultimately it makes little difference.
Original post by Muttley79
This is compete rubbish - RG means nothing for nearly all degrees and this ranking is so random as to be laughable.


Thank you for letting me know this by quoting my point and providing a statement that does not disprove the point but only demonstrate an emotional reaction.
Original post by Gowerdiola
so ultimately it makes me seem more sought after due to being from a RG Uni?

If you measure "sought after" by the kind of top jobs and accompanying salaries: Yes!

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-5093461/The-universities-earn-graduates-highest-salaries.html
Original post by RoyalBeams
Thank .

It's a FACT - where is the data to back up your view? I've been advising students on UCAS for decades ... ranking me so little excpet for one or two degrees.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by palaeolivic
I’m a RG graduate & yes it is just snobbery. Some firms want RG graduates, over non-rg but it is just snobbery. My subject at my uni was recently ranked 29th in the world which is great but makes little difference.

I would say for my field it was, beneficial to go to a research intensive university (as some of my lecturers are world experts in their techniques) but ultimately it makes little difference.


Researchers tend to research and do little lecturing - the quality of teaching in RG is no better [look at the independent ratings]

Just because a uni isn't RG doesn't mean it does not have world-class experts. RG is a self-selected club
Original post by RoyalBeams
If you measure

One quote does not make it true - it's not! Look for all degrees - a year in industry for an Engineer at a non-RG is far more valuable.

Many employers recruit institute -blind these days.
Original post by Muttley79
It's a FACT - where is the data to back up your view? I've been advising students on UCAS for decades ... ranking me so little excpet for one or two degrees.


I suggest you have a look at REF rankings plus their individual operating budgets and endowments, the average earnings of their graduates, their positions in the numerous international rankings that use multiple and different quantitative and qualitative data and, finally, how popular they are globally by looking at those that sarch for these universities on Google & Wikipedia.

Then come back and see if you can still argue that rankings mean little.

Original post by Muttley79
Researchers tend to research and do little lecturing - the quality of teaching in RG is no better [look at the independent ratings]

Just because a uni isn't RG doesn't mean it does not have world-class experts. RG is a self-selected club


I have not made any statement about quality of teaching, neither have I claimed that non-RG universities do not have world class experts or don't have heating in their student accommodation or the beer on campus is inferior or their sports activities are lower etc.
Original post by Muttley79
Researchers tend to research and do little lecturing - the quality of teaching in RG is no better [look at the independent ratings]

Just because a uni isn't RG doesn't mean it does not have world-class experts. RG is a self-selected club


I said in my comment that RG is a pure snobbery, I agree. as for researchers just researching that wasn't the case at my university (it may be due to the small overall nature of my subject field compared to other subjects).
Original post by Muttley79
Researchers tend to research and do little lecturing - the quality of teaching in RG is no better [look at the independent ratings]

Not in any of the highly research intensive institutions I am familiar with. Who do you think actually teaches in a university if not the research staff (I don't count RAs here, they are contract researchers, though some like to do a bit of teaching for CV building reasons).

Lecturing, tutorials etc are nearly always part of a dual role alongside your personal research. In my experience there are very few teaching only fellows and never a research only Prof. All the other Profs and (at least for me) a very detailed and very public teaching / admin hours credit / requirement system makes that simply impossible. The only (partial) teaching by-out’s we get are for “nasty” administrative roles, e.g. Director of Undergraduate Studies or head of a major research group. The latter is not “research”, its finance, safety, HR, 5 year plans etc.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Mr Wednesday
Not

Well students report that in a lot of unis people hate teaching the freshers and pull straws to see who gets to do that. they minimise contact with students and feedback is slow [see a number of threads on here]. Why are all unis not back to face-to-face lecturing - it's sheer laziness. In a lecture hall you are much less likely to get Covid than in a classroom with 30 children.

If RG is so good why aren't they all GOLD teaching standard ?
Original post by Muttley79
Well students report that in a lot of unis people hate teaching the freshers and pull straws to see who gets to do that. they minimise contact with students and feedback is slow [see a number of threads on here]. Why are all unis not back to face-to-face lecturing - it's sheer laziness. In a lecture hall you are much less likely to get Covid than in a classroom with 30 children.

If RG is so good why aren't they all GOLD teaching standard ?

So as a teacher yourself, let me ask you the following, exactly what aspect of real world teaching assessment is actually factored into the TEF. For bonus points, would you like you and your school to be assessed in this way ?

PS in my institution you actively have to bid for a major 1st year course, it's a tough competition and you need to deliver that well if you want to keep the course. It's also a specific metric for promotion.
(edited 1 year ago)

Quick Reply

Latest